Home ยป Joshua Ryan Dellinger: Blackmailing, dishonesty, and stalking (what else ya got?)

Sapient's picture

Ecce Homo wrote: 1)

Submitted by Sapient on February 19, 2008 - 9:12pm.

Ecce Homo wrote:

1) Knowing what the greater narrative of the bible actually is does not - I repeat, NOT make me a theist. It simply means I fully comprehend what it is that I am rejecting.

Duh. Between Kelly, Rook, and I we've read it over 7 times. We're not theists. I thought you said you were very familiar with us? The problem is, you don't fully understand it. You understand it as it would be presented by a Theologian with a propensity to excuse the flaws in the bible. At least in the example you gave.

 

Quote:
It simply means I fully comprehend what it is that I am rejecting. I'm sorry if you've confused this issue, but it's simply not my task to show you where you are in error. "Picking apart" the particular passage I have selected should here be understood as ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT. No piety need be involved...just logic.

Feel free to use some logic on the video response we posted.

 

Quote:
2) The inerminable straw men are really starting to bug me. I am no theist, nor creationist (you conlate the two...very amusing), nor Christian, nor any of your other detested adversaries. I am simply someone who cannot stand browbeating, pretentious charlatans.

You act like a Christian pawn. If you don't want to be suspected of being a dishonest Christian who refuses to admit he is Christian (over 40 have done that to us in the last two years) then you should probably not defend the bible to the letter exactly like Jerry Falwell would.

 

Quote:
3) Representing a position does not necessarily entail accepting it, so if I challenge you with a particular "theistic" argument, all you really have to do is worry about refuting it -- not deciphering my supposed religious beliefs. Honestly, do you people even understand how argumentation works?

Do you understand how honesty works? We don't like, enjoy, or spend time refuting arguments with people who don't even accept their own arguments.

 

Quote:
4) There are many problems concerning the existence of a creator being. Design is the weakest form of proof, as we all know. Theodicy is, in my opinion, the strongest, with cosmology a close second. If you wish to address COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS, then please do so. If you cannot, then you have no right to your positions, as you have not successfully refuted all counterpositions.

Ok, so you want us to refute arguments you don't actually believe? How about you save us the time and google this site, we've covered all the arguments you mention. Also look for posts from "Todangst" on the issue.

 

Quote:
5) I'm not impressed (nor should anyone be) by your predictably poor treatment of serious debate.

You didn't give us good reason to engage in "serious debate." You acted like a snot nosed brat in your early responses, go fuck yourself.

 

Quote:
If you can address this issue maturely, then we can of course continue, but - again - only if you can STOP asserting that I am in fact a creationist, STOP slandering me on your forums, STOP cowering from the actual arguments I have supplied (Kalam, etc.) and STOP pretending to have vitiated my position or discredited my right to argue by - again - unrightfully claiming I am in fact a creationist.

So you're not a creationist yet you want us to refute the Kalam cosmological argument that you don't believe in? You see how that's a waste of time for us? There are plenty of people who do believe it, and we spend our time with them.

 

 

Quote:
P.S. By the bye, you might enjoy a quick read on the genetic fallacy.

I know the genetic fallacy, you might enjoy looking up what a strawman argument is which you present here....

Quote:
EVEN IF I WERE A THEIST, WHICH I AM NOT, THIS DOES NOT INVALIDATE ALL MY CLAIMS, ARGUMENTS, POSITIONS, ETC. THIS IS A FALLACY AND YOU ARE ALL GUILTY OF POOR LOGIC. DEBATE THE INFINITE REGRESS OF CAUSALITY OR DELETE THIS THREAD. HONESTLY, YOU ONLY LOOK LIKE FRUSTRATED CHILDREN.

Nobody said it invalidated your arguments, but it did shove you to the back of the "please talk to me" line.

 

Quote:
There...unlike you, I don't enjoy resorting to such measures.

Right because the ultimatum, borderline threats, and essentially admission that you would stalk us if we didn't talk to you was a real logical and mature measure. Did I tell you to go fuck yourself, yet?

 

Quote:
Anyways, debate the topic at hand or this should not continue. To the Kalam cosmological argument, then, if you could.

It shouldn't continue.

Here is one of my partners refuting Kalam.

 

"I basically subscribed after I checked out that thread that Sapient posted on expenses and the like. Groceries are one of the most important items, so I'm hoping I'm helping there and I'm hoping I help Sapient break even. If I can help stop him from dipping into the retirement fund, I'll be happy." - The Sarge

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <p> <span> <div> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <img> <map> <area> <hr> <br> <br /> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <table> <tr> <td> <em> <b> <u> <i> <strong> <font> <del> <ins> <sub> <sup> <quote> <blockquote> <pre> <address> <code> <cite> <embed> <obj
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text, URLs will automatically be converted to links.

More information about formatting options